There is a guest post on the Faith and Theology blog today remembering John Stott, which focuses on Stott's strong belief that Christians must be engaged with the world around them. Stott would argue that Christians should follow Christ's call to be salt and light, seeking societal transformation in a world God loves.
The author of the post wonders why other evangelicals don't feel the same way. He points to something Tim Challies once wrote as a conclusion to a book review:
There is a time and a place for humanitarian work, no doubt. Christians can carry out great ministries serving the poor and the oppressed and in so doing can have remarkable opportunities to share the gospel. And yet still the history of Christianity shows that when Christians do this, the gospel quickly becomes secondary and the work itself becomes the gospel. I still see the Bible primarily emphasizing charity given to other believers; when I look at Acts and the epistles, this is what I see most—Christians helping other Christians as a sign of love and fraternity. Now of course there will be some who engage in humanitarian work outside the context of the local church, but it seems to me that the closer we come to making this a necessary part of the Christian mission, the more likely we are to see the gospel diminish.
I have two reasons for bringing this up. First, the author is right to critique evangelicalism's general avoidance of the calling Stott believed we all had. But second, he commits the error that has been committed by far too many people ever since that blasted TIME article came out a couple of years ago – he calls Challies a Neocalvinist.
Challies is not a neocalvinist. He is a New Calvinist. A Neocalvinist would never say what Challies has said above.
As I mentioned a few posts back, I've been reading John Bolt's little volume, Christian and Reformed Today. The book is available as a free PDF here. I have been plugging the book on Twitter and Facebook in the last few days because as I have been reading through it, I have come to realise how important of a book it is. If you consider yourself to be an adherent of the Reformed tradition, this book should be required reading. Bolt does an excellent job of summarising the tradition and demonstrating it to be a holistic worldview, not just a soteriological perspective. The recent resurgence in Reformed theology, specifically amongst the so-called New Calvinists, has led many to adopt the label of 'Reformed' without understanding the fullness and breadth of the tradition. Reformed theology, Bolt argues, is about a lot more than the redemption of our souls.
I may post more on this as I continue to read. Since we are in the middle of traveling and moving right now, I was not sure I would get the time to do so, but it seems I might. Stay tuned for more. In the meantime, be sure to download and read Bolt's book, and spread the word. With the increasing number of people claiming to be Reformed, this is becoming especially important.
I have been reading John Bolt's book, Christian and Reformed Today (which is available free as a PDF here), and already in the first couple of chapters I have found some particularly important things regarding the trinitarian emphasis in Reformed theology. Bolt argues that, although most Christian traditions certainly claim to be trinitarian, they often focus on one person of the Trinity to the exclusion of the other two. Only in the Reformed tradition, Bolt asserts, can one find a fully trinitarian Christianity.
For the purposes of defintion, Bolt says, "A Reformed person is trinitarian in theology and catholic in vision" (21). Expanding first on the trinitarian aspect of his defintion, Bolt cites Herman Bavinck, who writes, "The essence of the Christian religion consists therein, that the creation of the Father, destroyed by sin, is again restored in the death and resurrection of the Son of God, and recreated by the grace of the Spirit to a Kingdom of God" (29). It is notable that though all three persons of the Trinity are equal, there is a logical flow that begins with God the Father and creation.
When Reformed trinitarian theology begins with the Father, this has some important implications. It means specifically that creation has priority over salvation, that salvation is not escape from or elevation above creation but the restoration of creation. It means that the most important question in life is not, "What must I do to be saved," but "How can I glorify God?" As the Westminster Catechism so beautifully states it, "The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." It means that the Reformed tradition places a great deal of emphasis upon the idea of vocation or calling, upon serving God in this world rather than escaping from it (28).
So we see that a trinitarian theology begins and ends with God as Creator. This means that Christianity which is fully trinitarian will understand the end goal of the Christian life differently than a Christianity which lays more or less stress on one person of the Trinity. Most common in evangelical Christianity is the tendency to elevate the second person of the Trinity, thus making individual salvation the primary focus. As Bolt suggests, when the question, "What must I do to be saved?" becomes fundamental, the Christianity that emerges becomes too narrowly focused and fails to take into account the work of God to restore his creation and establish his rule as King. The biblical narrative is framed by creation and new creation, and our faith and theology must take this into account.
Bolt continues with an explanation of the second part of his definition:
The second part of the suggested definition has already been hinted at, namely that a Reformed person is catholic in vision. The Reformed view of life in the world is dominated by the idea of God's sovereignty over the entire cosmos. Abraham Kuyper in his Lectures on Calvinism put it this way: The dominating principle of Calvinism 'was not, soteriologically, justification by faith, but in the widest sense cosmologically, the sovereignty of the triune God over the whole cosmos, in all its spheres and kingdoms, visible and invisible.' That is what is meant by catholicity—the Reformed vision is cosmic or universal. The Reformed person is not satisifed with the salvation of his or her soul, as crucial as that is to being a Christian. The kingdom of heaven, the great Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck was fond of saying, is not only a pearl of great price, the treasure a man finds in a field and must obtain at all costs. It is that indeed, but it is also a leaven and a mustard seed which grows and expands. The gospel is a message for the world as well as for in the individual (29).
The stream of the Reformed tradition that has come to be known as the New Calvinism has a tendency to hear this and levy accusations both of transformationalism and a neglect of personal piety and holiness. That is a misunderstanding, however, and I think Bolt's emphasis on the trinitarian nature of the Reformed tradition is significant in correcting this misunderstanding. The focus of Reformed theology, as Bavinck notes above, is on the work of the triune God – not individuals – in restoring his creation and establishing the Kingdom of God. In turn, the people of God are called to embody the new reality that the coming of the Kingdom of God in Jesus Christ inaugurates. Holiness, then, is living according to the rule of the King in every part of life.
Well aware of the fact that I said just yesterday I would not be posting again until after Easter, I could not pass up sharing this with all of you. Steve Bishop posted the following on his blog yesterday, a summary of the contours of the Neocalvinist tradition drawn up by Mike Goheen and Craig Bartholomew. Clarifying what Neocalvinism is all about is especially important because there are many misleading caricatures of Neocalvinism by its opponents, particularly those who hold to something known as two-kingdom theology, and because of the constant misapplication of the term "Neocalvinist" to the New Calvinists (men like John Piper, Kevin DeYoung, Mark Driscoll), thanks to a careless terminological error in Time magazine last year.
Neocalvinism finds its roots largely in the thought of Abraham Kuyper, who has famously said, "In the total expanse of human life there is not a square inch of which Christ, who alone is sovereign, does not declare, 'That is mine!'" With that as its overarching perspective, Neocalvinism, according to Goheen and Bartholomew, can be further summarised further as follows:
1. Neocalvinism begins with Christ and this focus opens up into a full Trinitarian faith. 2. Christ is rendered to us truly in Scripture, which is fully trustworthy as God’s Word. 3. Christ stands at the centre of the biblical story and the good news he proclaimed is about the kingdom as the goal of history—God restoring his rule over the whole of human life and creation. 4. Since Christ has revealed and accomplished the end of history the Scriptures have a storied shape, and as such tell the true story of the whole world. 5. A central theme in the biblical story is God’s election of a people to embody the kingdom, to be a preview of the goal of history, and thus to bear witness to Christ’s rule over all of life – this constitutes mission. 6. The comprehensive gospel of the kingdom has been narrowed and consigned to a very minor place within the dominant Western humanist worldview, and this calls for a conscious articulation of a biblical worldview in relation to the cultural worldview to enable the church to recover the all-embracing scope of the good news. 7. The good news reveals the restoration of the creation from sin, and thus a neocalvinist worldview insists on a comprehensive and integrated understanding of creation, fall and restoration. 8. The fundamental backdrop of God’s drama of restoration is creation and thus neocalvinism articulates a rich doctrine of creation including its good and dynamic creation order and humanity’s place within it. 9. History is part of God’s order for creation and thus neocalvinism affirms the historical development or differentiation of creation. 10. The implication of the fall is that the power of sin and evil now radically twists every part of creation, and while the structures of creation remain good the distorting power of sin means they have been radically misdirected. 11. The Bible tells the story of restoration centred in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ which is the recovery of God’s originally good purposes for the whole of his creation and all of human life. 12. Since God’s restorative power is at work in the creation by the Spirit, and the forces of evil remains at work in the creation, neocalvinism recognizes an ultimate religious conflict in the whole of human life. 13. God is at work leading his creation to its destiny of a new heavens and a new earth, and only then will the kingdom finally come. Until then the church is called to participate in God’s redemptive mission—the missio Dei—as witnesses to his victory, but since we await the final victory there is no room for triumphalism in neocalvinism.
While there is much more that can be said about this, Goheen and Bartholomew have here given a very helpful summary of the Neocalvinist tradition. There are many other resources available for exploring Neocalvinism further. To begin with, Bob Robinson has written a few blog posts highlighting the differences between Neocalvinism and the New Calvinism (see also here). Steve Bishop has also worked tirelessly to compile a wealth of resources from different leaders and thinkers within the Neocalvinist tradition at his site, All of Life Redeemed.
I know this is only a very short introduction to Neocalvinism, but hopefully it piques your interest to explore the tradition further. And now the next time someone tells you that Piper is a Neocalvinist, you can lovingly correct the person, give them a copy of Creation Regained, and let them see for themselves what Neocalvinism is really about.
In the past several years, I've addressed the topic of education often on this blog, both in the context of the church and of higher education. Under the influence of people like James K. A. Smith and Steven Garber, I've long been convinced that education is not simply about downloading information in pursuit of qualification for a job or career, but is about the formation of the whole person. This is equally true of our approach to education in the church and in our schools. In terms of the former, one volume particularly worth mentioning is Gary Parrett and Steve Kang's excellent book, Teaching the Faith, Forming the Faithful.
I encountered this on a very practical level when I did my undergraduate studies at Redeemer University College, and remain so grateful for professors who understood and practised this. Much of their perspective finds its roots in the Neocalvinist tradition, where thinkers like Abraham Kuyper and Herman Dooyeweerd gave shape to an understanding of education that recognised the sovereignty of God over all of life, operated with a holistic and biblical concept of humanity, and that counters modernity by not letting consumerism drive education and act as its leading function. Occasionally, I find myself regretting my university years because I did not understand this well enough. I sometimes wish I could go through those four years again with the understanding I have now.
There is, of course, much to say on this topic, and I encourage you to read further on the matter. I was prompted to raise the topic again the other day when Bob Robinson posted this bit from Steven Garber's fantastic book, The Fabric of Faithfulness:
The shriveled visions of universities under the impact of modernity…seem more concerned to produce people who are technically competent but who have little interest in the whys and wherefores of the competencies.
Education must be oriented to preparation for a calling and not just training for a career. Walker Percy’s memorable metaphor captures the irony inherent in our individual and social expectations of the meaning of education when he writes of ‘the one who gets all A’s but flunks life.'
It is crucial for leaders in education to understand this as they engage in teaching and formation. They are not just facilitators to help students download information and pass tests. Students also need to stop thinking of education as just one step on the path to getting a good job, but recognise the role a good education plays in shaping their whole life.
Since this is my own blog, I'll plug the other posts I've written on the subject, which you can find grouped together under the education tag.
